Dreamer

“Which is the most universal human characteristic: fear, or laziness?” (Waking Life)

"Sanity is a madness put to good uses; waking life is a dream controlled." (Santayana)

I find myself thinking that a combination of both fear and laziness drives us. We obviously live in a world controlled by fear because we are always worried about the new disease or whatever consequences may come of any of our actions. Our fear drives us to be lazy many times and it drives us to lack initiative. However, the natural tendency to be lazy is also very influential in our lives as it is always more fun to watch to football game then it is to get your work finished. I think it's an unfortunate combination of both that keeps humans where they are.

I'm not sure what to exactly make of this quote aside from the fact that the world we see is controlled by our senses. Those senses are like our dreams because they aren't objects at all but the perception of those objects. This dream reality that we control is the life that's around us.

Angles of Vision

The truth in each of these stories/poems reflects truth not only in how it exists in our world. But how it connects to each truth that we as human beings have. The book "I know the Moon" shows how truth is all dependent on one universal truth. It is undeniable that the moon exists yet each of the animals has a different idea of what the moon is. All of their different truths came from the one universal truth of the moon. When they went to the scientist he described the moon to them in words and this irritated the animals further who still had a different idea of what the moon was. By the end of the story however they all look at the moon slightly more together and their different truths combine into the one big truth that is the moon. "The Wolves in the Walls" shows truth based of one's perception of reality. Lucy hears the wolves and yet the rest of the family refuses to believe it because of its lack of sensibility. There cannot be wolves because there's no such thing as a wolf living in walls. However that reality quickly changes as the wolves to come out of the walls and vindicate the young girl. This relates to "I Know the Moon" because each of the characters has their own truth that spans of one universal truth. Whether it be the moon or wolves in the walls. "How to Tell a War Story" takes on a totally different idea of truth in that it can take on many different guises. He sees the truth that really "happens" and the truth that seems to happen. He describes a soldier getting gunned down in a hail of fire and killed and then says that it appears like he was killed by the sun. This shows how truth can take on a guise and isn't necessarily definitive on reality (similar to "The Wolves in the Walls". Dickinson describes truth as a deity almost and defines it as an incredible power. She uses the comparison that because truth will never die it must be a god in a sense because supposedly god will never die. She even goes on to show how truth is the only thing as old as god and hence must be a god on it's own.

Personally I find myself most drawn to Obrien's description of truth. I do not believe that truth isn't just necessarily the opposite of an untruth. Truth takes on many guises that span far beyond reality. Similar to "I know the Moon" I get irked when truth is defined in a clear, definitive, "thing", or worse described in basic words and nothing more. Truth covers much more than just words and we cannot begin to touch on what truth truly is. But one truth can be the same as a million "untruths" and vise versa. Everything depends on perception and a certain ability to define the world around you beyond what is "real."

Lecture on Humanity

In Issac Asimov’s “Lecture on Humanity”, given in 1973, he makes many predictions about the 21st century. He says, among other things, we’ll need population control, a shift in our view of education, a change in food production, and we’ll have to realize “we’re a world without war” (10).

As a young, intelligent member of the 21st century, what do you think of Asimov’s predictions? Have any of them come true? If they haven’t, should we work toward making any of them a reality? Why or why not?

What other elements of Asimov’s lecture appeal to you? What do you make of his humor? Of his anecdotes? Explain what we can learn from his pointed sarcasm and from some of the stories he shares with us.

And, finally, how does this lecture reflect qualities of synoptic philosophy and critical analysis? Give a specific example.

I absolutely love Issac Assimov and his humanistic approach to humanity. He's the only humanist that I find myself agreeing with due to his very fatalistic ideas. He believes that as humans we are failing in society and that our huge spiral will lead us nowhere in life. I could not agree more.

He makes predictions based off literal subjects. Like the rise in global warming and the increase of war and others that are undeniable facts about our world right now. We as a society cannot deny that our pollution and constant killing of each other over subjects as ridiculous as belief is only hurting our cause in the long run. He has predicted nothing but a long downhill spiral on humanity and I can completely agree with what he says.

The way he speaks and his comical tone makes him much more listenable and this makes for a much better connection to his reader/audience. I felt a much closer tie to him due to his informal attitude and I appreciated what he said much more rather than to someone if they just came up and said "We're all going to die." He pretty much said we are all going to die IF we don't change this, this, and this.

He shows fatalism and a lack of hope. But at least he proposes a solution and he proposes them to the youth of this world in the small hopes that his speech may make a difference and THAT is the significance in what he does an says. His ability to connect to the right people makes what he does incredibly important.

Meaning-making Machines

"If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded--or even suspects--that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe."

--Irving Kristol

It seems that the key idea here is what Kristol meant by a meaningless life or a meaningless universe. As Xinlin said, one could look at this from a literal standpoint and say that he meant a purpose in life or a point in life but I think he means more than just that. Humans love to believe that the world isn't so random and that their lives aren't so chaotic. We spend our time finding excuses as to what our meanings are or what our purposes are. We spend years trying to find out who we are (metaphorically speaking of course) and we forget much of the big picture. This dissolution leads us to believe and see strange things and we may think that our society is working. We can see this in all forms of government as well. Before every government fails (as they are all destined to do) it's people fall in love with it, become concerned about it, hate it, and then BOOM revolution and everyone's waving their flags for a "new order" or some other ideal that will be just as easily washed away as its predecessor. This proves Kristol's point because as history shows, people like to see their society working in some way and once it becomes impossible to further lie to themselves about it they burn it down and create a new one.

The one thing that I do not agree with in Kristol's point that even a suspicion will lead to a community's destruction for people will lie to themselves for years in order to rekindle that feeling of fake hope that they once had. Our suspicions exist but we repress them in order to not cause a commotion in our community. We are instilled with fear and the powers that surround us keep us from speaking up so we quell our suspicions and allow these communities that seem to be leading meaningless lives to continue to spiral downward until there is nothing more of it but a distant memory of what people thought they had.